Compromise sought in pursuit of democracy<\/p>\n
Miriam Budiardjo, Professor, Political Science, University of Indonesia,
\nJakarta<\/p>\n
The Sept. 11, 2001 incident has drastically changed the world.
\nThe war on terrorism and violence in Afghanistan waged by several
\nWestern countries once advocating human rights, has considerably
\nweakened the moral strength that underlies the international
\ncampaign to promote human rights.<\/p>\n
Although they have resorted to force as a consequence of the
\ndestruction of the World Trade Center, which was widely condemned
\nby most nations, one day all eyes will likely be on the
\nInternational Court of Justice which is now trying cases of war
\ncrimes in the Balkans.<\/p>\n
If the tribunal were to evaluate acts of violence committed by
\nsome super powers today, doubts may be raised as to whether
\nstandards now applied to serious violations of human rights will
\nbe maintained or whether double standards should be introduced.
\nDiverse interpretations of when an armed intervention can be
\ncalled a \"just war\" may emerge, thus justifying otherwise serious
\nbreaches of human rights.<\/p>\n
One must note here the major issues of first, the \"tension\"
\nbetween political rights and economic rights, and second, the
\nconcept of human rights which are inseparable from democracy.
\nBoth topics have influenced countries in transition, including
\nIndonesia, which are shifting from authoritarian rule to
\ndemocracy.<\/p>\n
The dichotomy between political and economic rights developed
\nduring the post-World War II period between Western (First World)
\ncountries and Communist (Second World) countries. The West was
\nobsessed by the exercise of traditional rights in political terms
\n(such as the rights to survival, speech) and made light of
\neconomic rights (like the rights to decent life, education),
\nbecause Western states had already eliminated poverty and
\nachieved high levels of education.<\/p>\n
Conversely, Second and Third World nations, with their low
\nlevels of prosperity, prioritized the fulfillment of economic
\nrights, especially poverty relief.<\/p>\n
With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989 as a nation-
\nstate symbolizing communism and representing the Second World,
\nonly the First World (now including countries like the Russian
\nFederation and ex-communist East European nations) and the Third
\nWorld are left.<\/p>\n
Three worlds have been reduced to two, often referred to as
\nthe West versus the Rest.<\/p>\n
The two worlds reached a compromise in the United Nations
\nConference in Vienna in 1993. Their consensus stated, among other
\nthings, that all human rights (political and economic) shall be
\nuniversal, and be treated on an equal basis and with the same
\nemphasis.<\/p>\n
But they acknowledged that differences could arise in relevant
\ncountries on the basis of \"national, regional characteristics and
\nvarious historical, cultural and religious backgrounds\".
\nNonetheless, dissent has vaguely prevailed. India and China as
\nwell as some other countries adopt an inward looking attitude.<\/p>\n
In Indonesia, the variance is reflected in the acceptance of
\ntwo groups. The first group, with its outward looking stance,
\nmaintains that all the provisions of international bodies are
\nbinding and must be carried out. The implementation of
\ninternational conventions, laws and customary laws is compulsory.
\nThis viewpoint of the West is shared by most human rights
\nactivists.<\/p>\n
The second group is inward looking and closer to the position
\nof the Rest, which recognizes the need to respect and implement
\ninternational decisions, because the traditional concept of
\nsovereignty has more or less been undermined by the growing role
\nof the United Nations and economic globalization.<\/p>\n
Yet this group is also convinced that in economically weak
\ncountries, the focus should be the realization of the right to
\ndevelopment in addition to political rights. This is very crucial
\nfor the establishment of a viable and effective government, and
\nat the same time a precondition to the founding of a consolidated
\ndemocratic state.<\/p>\n
Unfortunately, there is no single standard definition of
\ndemocracy. In the West it covers transparent general elections,
\nin which prospective decision-makers periodically contest for
\npower in an atmosphere of respect for civil liberties and
\nprotection for minority groups.<\/p>\n
Democracy also encompasses such concepts as accountability,
\ncompetition, participation and human rights protection.
\nSuccessful democracy is characterized by sustained economic
\ngrowth, the presence of a large and relatively prosperous middle
\nclass, autonomous groups, the rule of law and a tolerant
\npolitical culture ready for dialog and compromise.<\/p>\n
A system which embraces those concepts is frequently called a
\nstrong democracy. This characterization is only natural because
\nit stems from a stable Western society where social and economic
\nfactors need no longer be considered and are already taken for
\ngranted.<\/p>\n
The awareness that socio-economic and stability issues cannot
\njust be taken for granted, but constitute an absolute supporting
\nelement of democracy, only arose when many countries succeeded in
\ntoppling their authoritarian regimes and craved a democratic
\nsystem of administration.<\/p>\n
And as obstacles stood in the way of democratization,
\npolitical setbacks, social upheavals and chaos tended to follow,
\nthus endangering the existence of the states themselves.
\nTherefore, the concept has emerged that for the growth and
\nconsolidation of democracy, its supporting factors must be set
\nup.<\/p>\n
Its main pillar, according to several experts, is a sovereign
\nstate. They maintain that without a sovereign state there is no
\ndemocracy. \"A sovereign state is a prerequisite for democracy\",
\naccording to Juan Linz and Alfred Stepan, as stated in their
\nbook, Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation. The
\nsame view is held by Saafroedin Bahar in Konteks Kenegaraan dari
\nHAM 1945-1991 (The statehood context of human rights, 1945-1991).<\/p>\n
One component of a sovereign state is a viable government
\ncapable of responding to the challenges it faces. It is
\nabsolutely necessary to create an atmosphere in which the
\nadministration is able to undertake good governance, i.e. close
\ncooperation between the government apparatus (including the
\nbureaucracy), civil society and economic forces.<\/p>\n
In Indonesia, poverty among millions of people, unemployment,
\ninternally displaced people, low quality human resources,
\nseparatist sentiments, lawlessness and minimal political
\nstability need to be thoroughly resolved because they are not
\nconducive to fostering democracy. The other facts such as the
\ncountry's vast territory, the profiles of island groups and the
\nlarge population, the fourth largest in the world, make matters
\nworse.<\/p>\n
Government policies may have initially been less favorable to
\nthe optimal application of political rights in view of limited
\nfinancial resources, while the realization that both political
\nand economic rights demand huge funds.<\/p>\n
The two interests are competing in their struggle for part of
\nthe shrinking economic pie. Such policies will be opposed by many
\nhuman rights activists, anti-state groups and smaller units
\ndesiring a social revolution. But a modus vivendi (feasible
\ncompromise) should be sought to ensure the simultaneous pursuit
\nof human rights and a viable state that is sustainable. Public
\nsupport is vital to achieve this democracy.<\/p>\n
The above article appeared earlier in the Kompas daily.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/compromise-sought-in-pursuit-of-democracy-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }